![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hey, folks.
Today I'm at my parents' house. That's today as in Wednesday, though it's just past midnight Thursday... I woke up a few minutes ago after having crashed early. Tomorrow the road trip begins. Now, some musings on fandom.
In particular, this.
There's a lot of links there, so let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
A pair of researchers from Boston University* hit upon the brilliant idea of using fandom as a source for datamining in order to get information for a book they're writing for Penguin Press called Rule 34: What Getting Underaged Girls To Talk To Us About Their Masturbatory Habits Confirmed About Our Theories On Chicks' Brains And Junk. Well, that may not be the exact subtitle the book's been listed under, but they themselves have said the subtitle isn't finalized yet.
Their plan was this: using the familiar and scientifically rigorous format of an internet survey, they would ask fans a series of questions about their consumption and production of slash fic. As cognitive neuroscientists, they would then correlate this information with what's going on in the brain while the fic is being read to build a better model of the cortical circuitry involved in things like our responses to arousal.
There were some problems apparent with this half of their methodology from the beginning... issues of informed consent, issues of privacy, sampling issues, and issues with the basic formulation of the questions... but a number of fen--some of them occupied in scientific/research fields themselves--found the idea intriguing and wanted to know about the other half of their methodology: how did they intend to collect the information their fandom data would be correlated to, the internal goings-on? That would seem a far more daunting task than getting the internet to take a survey.
It turned out they had an elegant solution to what could otherwise have been a thorny problem: not bothering with it in the first place. You see, they are cognitive neuroscientists, and cognitive neuroscientists already know what's going on in people's brains. There's no need to study what you already know.
...
So the plan was to ask a bunch of people--whom they presumed were predominantly heterosexual women--about how they relate to erotically charged material, and then compare this to what they know about women's brains--that women aren't interested in sexual pleasure in the same way that men are--and build a better model of thewandering uterus and how it can tragically result in distracted housewives producing cold or overcooked dinners, when they remember to cook dinner at all female brain. Amazingly they would accomplish this without taking in any data about the brain at all.
They explained that they chose to focus on male/male slash fiction because to their minds, the idea of straight women being aroused by the thought of a man and a man is a serious enigma, something as bizarre and counterintuitive as straight dudes whacking it to chicks with dicks. Something that was so radically against cultural expectations would give more illuminating insights about the underlying circuits of the brain than something that was cultural in nature, like a woman thinking of England.
(One assumes they chose to study female slash ficcers because that's less gross than dudes whacking it to chicks with dicks. Although in fairness to the researchers, they didn't use that term. Instead they used "trannies" and... when informed that this term was disrespectful... "shemales". They presumed that those terms were acceptable forms of address because they are used by the adult industry, which is the gold standard for civil communications.)
At this point, you're probably going, "Ahahahahahahahaha, fandom got trolled."
Yeah.
You wish.
Meet Dr. Ogi Ogas. He's apparently a minor celebrity due to appearances on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Back off, man... he's a scientist. And the book deal is real, too... at least so far. Pretty much everything that Dr. Ogas posted on the subject has been removed.
That's the basics.
Other people who have actual scientific backgrounds have been dissecting the numerous objective flaws in his methodology (from both ethical standpoints and from "RIGOR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY GOODNIGHT" standpoints.) As a layshemale, I can only say that it appears to me that they are relying on a mass of unsupported circular assumptions and the researchers' own biases.
I'm going to take a moment to talk about communication.
When it was pointed out to him that his survey questions revealed that he was laboring under some misapprehensions about what fen and slashficcers actually do or that the words he was using to ask and receive answers didn't mean the same things to the survey respondents as he thought they meant, Dr. Ogas (there's another person involved in the project but Dr. Ogas appears to have been taking point on the "piss off the pool of research subjects/largest potential demographic for the finished book" side of the project) repeatedly gave a form response to the effect that since he wasn't studying fandom itself, he wasn't interested in learning about fandom.
In a fleeting interaction with him (I declined to engage at length with him... doctor's orders still stand), I used this metaphor: if you're interested in studying the ocean floor, you have to get into the water. It doesn't matter if the water is beyond the scope of your study. If you hold yourself above it, all you will see is distortion.
On a slightly less metaphorical level: if you want to get information from people, you need to make sure you're speaking the same language.
Even if their methods were sound and they were following acceptable scientific practices, their inability to communicate with the survey subjects would have hopelessly compromised the data they collected. I detect a bit of the "hard science"/"soft science" divide at play here... as cognitive neuroscientists, they deal with objective facts, not squishy things like feelings. Let anthropologists sort out subcultures. Let linguists deal with jargons and dialects and argots. Let psychologists ask the questions like, "what does _____ mean to you?"
That and a little naivete could explain the initial clusterfuck, but they held to the "we don't need to understand you people" line even long past the point at which it was apparent they were talking at cross-purposes with the folks they hoped to collect data from on nearly every subject they were asking about.
Several people have marveled at how willfully obtuse he seemed to be about the communication issue... along with other issues, too. My theory is that he realized fairly early on how wildly off-base his assumptions were, but the book's already sold. If he took time out to immerse himself, it would delay publication. This is a pop science book, not a peer-reviewed journal, and as he regards his subjects as little more than sideshow freaks (women with self-actualized sex drives... it's almost too strange an idea to be credited, but what does it mean?) he didn't think it would matter how outraged they were. See above, in re: back off, man... he's a scientist.
But fandom reads. Fandom writes. Fandom includes scientists, statisticians, university professors.
Fandom communicates.
In the course of just the last week, since this all blew up, Boston University (*remember that asterisk?) politely repudiated any connection to him and his work, emphasizing that he's a researcher who graduated from BU, not a researcher working from BU, and he's been asked to stop using their name and logo and his university-granted email address in conjunction with the project. Fandom has closed ranks against him in a startling display of unity. Numerous people who filled out the survey withdrew their consent for the answers to be used. Other people deliberately filled out misleading answers, or filled out the form using every text box to explain the problems with the questions.
The survey was withdrawn, with a page put up explaining it was being reworked in response to feedback.
That page was also withdrawn.
It currently redirects to Google.
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition...
...except that if they had actually studied fandom at all, they would have been able to predict all this.
They didn't.
And now Dr. Ogas and his partner in this venture have completely poisoned the well for themselves. Despite the repeated claims that they aren't interested in fandom, that's the entire hook of their book. Does this sink the project? I wish I could say it does, but then, they've already established that they consider data to be a luxury serious scientists can afford to do without when collecting it would require work. Unless the book is canceled on the other end, I expect they will soldier on and deliver more or less the same book they already planned to. Their conclusions were already pre-drawn... when it's "sentence first, verdict afterwards", there's little need to actually reach a verdict and even less need to present any evidence.
The only difference will be some snarky "analysis" of fandom's response and what it means about female subcortical responses.
I expect it'll boil down to "women are emotional". I also predict words like "tribal" will come up.
If the Rule 34 title doesn't work out, they could call the finished book The Internet Is Mean: How A Bunch Of Sexually Dysfunctional Harpies Ruined Science Forever.
Today I'm at my parents' house. That's today as in Wednesday, though it's just past midnight Thursday... I woke up a few minutes ago after having crashed early. Tomorrow the road trip begins. Now, some musings on fandom.
In particular, this.
There's a lot of links there, so let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.
A pair of researchers from Boston University* hit upon the brilliant idea of using fandom as a source for datamining in order to get information for a book they're writing for Penguin Press called Rule 34: What Getting Underaged Girls To Talk To Us About Their Masturbatory Habits Confirmed About Our Theories On Chicks' Brains And Junk. Well, that may not be the exact subtitle the book's been listed under, but they themselves have said the subtitle isn't finalized yet.
Their plan was this: using the familiar and scientifically rigorous format of an internet survey, they would ask fans a series of questions about their consumption and production of slash fic. As cognitive neuroscientists, they would then correlate this information with what's going on in the brain while the fic is being read to build a better model of the cortical circuitry involved in things like our responses to arousal.
There were some problems apparent with this half of their methodology from the beginning... issues of informed consent, issues of privacy, sampling issues, and issues with the basic formulation of the questions... but a number of fen--some of them occupied in scientific/research fields themselves--found the idea intriguing and wanted to know about the other half of their methodology: how did they intend to collect the information their fandom data would be correlated to, the internal goings-on? That would seem a far more daunting task than getting the internet to take a survey.
It turned out they had an elegant solution to what could otherwise have been a thorny problem: not bothering with it in the first place. You see, they are cognitive neuroscientists, and cognitive neuroscientists already know what's going on in people's brains. There's no need to study what you already know.
...
So the plan was to ask a bunch of people--whom they presumed were predominantly heterosexual women--about how they relate to erotically charged material, and then compare this to what they know about women's brains--that women aren't interested in sexual pleasure in the same way that men are--and build a better model of the
They explained that they chose to focus on male/male slash fiction because to their minds, the idea of straight women being aroused by the thought of a man and a man is a serious enigma, something as bizarre and counterintuitive as straight dudes whacking it to chicks with dicks. Something that was so radically against cultural expectations would give more illuminating insights about the underlying circuits of the brain than something that was cultural in nature, like a woman thinking of England.
(One assumes they chose to study female slash ficcers because that's less gross than dudes whacking it to chicks with dicks. Although in fairness to the researchers, they didn't use that term. Instead they used "trannies" and... when informed that this term was disrespectful... "shemales". They presumed that those terms were acceptable forms of address because they are used by the adult industry, which is the gold standard for civil communications.)
At this point, you're probably going, "Ahahahahahahahaha, fandom got trolled."
Yeah.
You wish.
Meet Dr. Ogi Ogas. He's apparently a minor celebrity due to appearances on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Back off, man... he's a scientist. And the book deal is real, too... at least so far. Pretty much everything that Dr. Ogas posted on the subject has been removed.
That's the basics.
Other people who have actual scientific backgrounds have been dissecting the numerous objective flaws in his methodology (from both ethical standpoints and from "RIGOR DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY GOODNIGHT" standpoints.) As a layshemale, I can only say that it appears to me that they are relying on a mass of unsupported circular assumptions and the researchers' own biases.
I'm going to take a moment to talk about communication.
When it was pointed out to him that his survey questions revealed that he was laboring under some misapprehensions about what fen and slashficcers actually do or that the words he was using to ask and receive answers didn't mean the same things to the survey respondents as he thought they meant, Dr. Ogas (there's another person involved in the project but Dr. Ogas appears to have been taking point on the "piss off the pool of research subjects/largest potential demographic for the finished book" side of the project) repeatedly gave a form response to the effect that since he wasn't studying fandom itself, he wasn't interested in learning about fandom.
In a fleeting interaction with him (I declined to engage at length with him... doctor's orders still stand), I used this metaphor: if you're interested in studying the ocean floor, you have to get into the water. It doesn't matter if the water is beyond the scope of your study. If you hold yourself above it, all you will see is distortion.
On a slightly less metaphorical level: if you want to get information from people, you need to make sure you're speaking the same language.
Even if their methods were sound and they were following acceptable scientific practices, their inability to communicate with the survey subjects would have hopelessly compromised the data they collected. I detect a bit of the "hard science"/"soft science" divide at play here... as cognitive neuroscientists, they deal with objective facts, not squishy things like feelings. Let anthropologists sort out subcultures. Let linguists deal with jargons and dialects and argots. Let psychologists ask the questions like, "what does _____ mean to you?"
That and a little naivete could explain the initial clusterfuck, but they held to the "we don't need to understand you people" line even long past the point at which it was apparent they were talking at cross-purposes with the folks they hoped to collect data from on nearly every subject they were asking about.
Several people have marveled at how willfully obtuse he seemed to be about the communication issue... along with other issues, too. My theory is that he realized fairly early on how wildly off-base his assumptions were, but the book's already sold. If he took time out to immerse himself, it would delay publication. This is a pop science book, not a peer-reviewed journal, and as he regards his subjects as little more than sideshow freaks (women with self-actualized sex drives... it's almost too strange an idea to be credited, but what does it mean?) he didn't think it would matter how outraged they were. See above, in re: back off, man... he's a scientist.
But fandom reads. Fandom writes. Fandom includes scientists, statisticians, university professors.
Fandom communicates.
In the course of just the last week, since this all blew up, Boston University (*remember that asterisk?) politely repudiated any connection to him and his work, emphasizing that he's a researcher who graduated from BU, not a researcher working from BU, and he's been asked to stop using their name and logo and his university-granted email address in conjunction with the project. Fandom has closed ranks against him in a startling display of unity. Numerous people who filled out the survey withdrew their consent for the answers to be used. Other people deliberately filled out misleading answers, or filled out the form using every text box to explain the problems with the questions.
The survey was withdrawn, with a page put up explaining it was being reworked in response to feedback.
That page was also withdrawn.
It currently redirects to Google.
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition...
...except that if they had actually studied fandom at all, they would have been able to predict all this.
They didn't.
And now Dr. Ogas and his partner in this venture have completely poisoned the well for themselves. Despite the repeated claims that they aren't interested in fandom, that's the entire hook of their book. Does this sink the project? I wish I could say it does, but then, they've already established that they consider data to be a luxury serious scientists can afford to do without when collecting it would require work. Unless the book is canceled on the other end, I expect they will soldier on and deliver more or less the same book they already planned to. Their conclusions were already pre-drawn... when it's "sentence first, verdict afterwards", there's little need to actually reach a verdict and even less need to present any evidence.
The only difference will be some snarky "analysis" of fandom's response and what it means about female subcortical responses.
I expect it'll boil down to "women are emotional". I also predict words like "tribal" will come up.
If the Rule 34 title doesn't work out, they could call the finished book The Internet Is Mean: How A Bunch Of Sexually Dysfunctional Harpies Ruined Science Forever.
